Commonwealth v. Donahoe

• Decision Date: 29 January 1881
• Citation: 130 Mass. 280
• Parties: Commonwealth v. John T. Donahoe
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

130 Mass. 280

Commonwealth v. John T. Donahoe

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 29, 1881

Middlesex. Complaint to the Police Court of Lowell, alleging that the defendant, on June 7, 1880, at Lowell "unlawfully did sell intoxicating liquors to one Margaret Baxter, not to be drunk on the premises of said Donahoe, and said intoxicating liquors were not then and there drunk on the premises of him, said Donahoe, by her said Baxter, but were then and there carried away from said premises, he, said Donahoe, not having then and there any license, appointment or authority according to law to make such sale of said intoxicating liquor sold as aforesaid not to be drunk on the said premises; against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

On this complaint, the defendant was tried and found guilty, and appealed to the Superior Court. In that court, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant moved to quash the complaint, on the following grounds: "1. Because the same does not set out or charge any offence known to the law. 2. Because the same does not allege that the defendant had at the time of the sale therein set out, no license or authority to sell intoxicating liquors, and does not allege that the defendant had no license or authority to make the sale therein set out. 3. Because the same does not allege the premises on which said liquors, alleged to be sold, were sold not to be drunk, and does not allege that said liquors were sold not to be drunk on any premises on which the defendant had a license to sell liquors, and does not allege that some one did not drink said liquors on the premises, nor that they were carried away by said Baxter, the purchaser. 4. Because the same does not allege that defendant sold said liquors knowing or with intent that the same would be carried away and not be drunk on the premises of defendant. 5. Because the same is bad in substance, double and unintelligible, and does not fully, plainly, substantially and formally describe any offence."

Putnam, J. overruled the motion; the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

G. Stevens & G. H. Stevens, for the defendant.

G. Marston, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Lord J., absent.

OPINION

By the Court.

The objections to the complaint were in matter of form, and not of substance, and,...